PLACING THE ‘NATURAL’ EDGES OF A METROPOLITAN REGION THROUGH MULTIPLE RESIDENCY: LANDSCAPE AND URBAN FORM IN TORONTO’S ‘COTTAGE COUNTRY’ by Nik Luka A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography Graduate Department of Geography and Programme in Planning University of Toronto © Copyright by Nik Luka 2006 Placing the ‘natural’ edges of a metropolitan region through multiple residency: Landscape and urban form in Toronto’s ‘cottage country’ Doctor of Philosophy in Geography (2006) Nik Luka (Graduate) Department of Geography and Programme in Planning University of Toronto Abstract This study examines certain ‘cottage’ or water-oriented second-home settings of central Ontario to assert that they have effectively become part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), a major metropolitan region now undergoing rapid population growth. The central thesis is that this so-called ‘cottage country’ must be considered part of the primary life-space for many individuals and households based in the GTA. Multiple residency—the social-spatial practice by which households live in more than one dwelling—is examined to make sense of what now comprises the Toronto-centred urban territory or ‘metapolis’ and its housing markets, while also enabling us to ‘place’ the ‘natural’ edges of this metropolitan area in at least two important ways. It first helps to demonstrate certain spatial qualities of the GTA as an unevenly urban territory. At the same time, the waterfront components of ‘cottage country’ are ‘living edges’ in landscape ecology terms and significant sites or ‘places’ that enable individuals and households to situate themselves within abstract notions of ‘nature’ and the ‘wilderness’—ideas about land and landscape that have long held sway in Canadian cultural discourses. The mixed quantitative and qualitative methodology employed here includes a generalised social history, a detailed questionnaire (n=200), and in-depth interviews with cottage users (n=30) in three discrete second- home settings. These case study areas are situated within broader discourses and processes of transformation, exploring certain dynamics of urban form, structure, and metropolitan growth while also examining important dimensions of how people think about space, place, landscape, and what has been called the ‘sense of region’— all of which are arguably revealed by ‘cottaging’ as a culturally meaningful social practice. Conceptually, the research presented here is thus a dialogue between markets and meaning. Beyond its empirical contributions, this study is intended to assert the importance of an epistemological approach to landscape and urban form— the domains of cultural and urban geography, respectively—in concert. Such an approach is needed if we are to substantively examine abstract processes, narratives, and/or conceptualisations of space and landscape without neglecting to systematically ground them in place and in the materiality of urban form. ii C O N T E N T List of Tables . x List of Maps . xi List of Figures . xiii 1 Introduction . 1 1.1 Defining cottages and second homes 4 1.2 The problématique of central Ontario cottage country 6 1.3 The kind of study this is 11 f 2 Review of the literature . 13 2.1 Early work: the scholarly ‘discovery’ of the second-home phenomenon 13 2.2 The recent renaissance of second-home studies 20 2.3 Synthesis: Thematic concerns and missing elements 29 f 3 Conceptual framework . 37 3.1 Epistemological antecedents 37 3.1.1. Urban form studies 39 3.1.2. Environment-behaviour studies 46 3.1.3. Missing links: theories of social practice and structuration 56 3.2 Synthesis 61 vi 4 Research questions and methodology . 66 4.1 Clarification of terminology and approach 66 4.2 Research questions 67 4.2.1 What are the characteristic settlement patterns of central Ontario cottage country, and how are these now changing? 67 4.2.2. What are the key motivations for the social practice of cottaging in central Ontario, and in what ways have these changed over time? 68 4.2.3. In what ways does central Ontario cottage country fit into the housing markets of the Toronto-centred metropolitan region as revealed by users’ residential biographies? 68 4.2.4. As a cultural landscape, does ‘cottage country’ constitute a generic category of landscape and urban form in the minds of its users, and if so, how? 69 4.3 Research methodology 70 4.3.1. Study territories and selection of specific case study settings 73 4.3.2. Spatial analysis methods: Examining urban form 80 4.3.3. Methods for tapping into meaning: Assessing landscape 81 4.3.4. Supplementary methods 86 5 Central Ontario’s cottage settings: landscape ecology, settlement patterns, and social history . 87 5.1 The landscape ecology context 87 5.2 Central Ontario becomes a cottaging destination 90 5.2.1. The rise of cottage country tourism, 1875-1920 90 5.2.2. The first boom in cottage construction, 1920-1945 95 5.2.3. The postwar ‘democratisation’ of cottaging, 1945-1975 99 5.2.4. After the boom: the bust ... and the echo, 1975-1990 104 5.3 Contemporary changes in central Ontario cottage country 106 vii 6 Empirical findings: Online questionnaire . 116 6.1 Sample profile 116 6.2 The cottage property as part of the metropolitan housing system 119 6.2.1. Cottage-residential biographies 119 6.2.2. Patterns of multiple residency and commuting 122 6.2.3. The cottage property as part of a longer-term housing strategy 127 6.3 Enduring landscape and urban form qualities of the cottage setting 129 6.3.1. The cottage dwelling as a structure-in-context 129 6.3.2. Cottage settings as places of high environmental quality 131 6.3.3. Cottage country as a generic settlement category 134 6.4 Trouble in paradise? Respondent views on continuity and change 138 6.4.1. Cottage settings as home landscapes 138 6.4.2. Care and concern over perceived changes 142 7 Case study areas: context and historical overview . 151 7.1 The Severn River from Sparrow Lake to Gloucester Pool 151 7.2 Thunder Bay Beach 159 7.3 Crystal Lake 171 8 Empirical findings: case study areas . 179 8.1 The respondents and their cottage country housing careers 179 8.1.1. Sample socio-demographic profiles 179 8.1.2. Respondent cottage-residential biographies 182 8.1.3. The metropolitan context: Multiple residency, commuting, and longer-term housing strategies 189 8.2 The peculiarity of place: the case study areas through respondents’ eyes 195 8.2.1. Congruency of the case study areas with generic notions of landscape and urban form 195 8.2.2. Mapping cottage country: the peculiarities of place 199 8.2.3. Situating the case study areas relative to the 210 Toronto metropolitan region viii 9 Synthesis, discussion, and implications . 220 9.1 General synthesis of results 266 9.2 Discussion of research questions 222 9.2.1. What are the characteristic settlement patterns of central Ontario cottage country, and how are these now changing? 222 9.2.2. As a cultural landscape, how does ‘cottage country’ constitute a generic category of landscape and urban form in the minds of its users? 226 9.2.3. What are the key motivations for the social practice of cottaging in central Ontario, and in what ways have these changed over time? 230 9.2.4. In what ways does central Ontario cottage country fit into the housing markets of the Toronto-centred metropolitan region as revealed by users’ residential biographies? 239 9.3 Towards a richer epistemology of landscape and urban form 242 9.4 Directions for future research and coda 246 Appendices . 251 A Outreach materials, offprint of the online questionnaire instrument, and in-depth interview guide 251 B Human settlement in central Ontario cottage country to the 1870s 278 References . 286 1. Published scholarly sources 286 2. Dissertations and other unpublished scholarly sources 314 3. Statistics Canada data 315 4. Miscellaneous government reports, maps, and archival material 316 5. Interviews and personal communications 317 6. Newspaper and magazine articles 317 7. Popular literature and general interest websites 317 8. Fiction and poetry 320 9. Miscellaneous unpublished material 321 ix LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Second-home ownership and population characteristics in Ontario, 1997-2003. 2.1 Summary of whether or not the three central preoccupations of this study are addressed by key contemporary observers and/or studies of second homes, including the geographical context in question for each 2.2 Summary of whether or not the three central preoccupations of this study are addressed by studies that have focused in whole or in part on central Ontario (arranged in chronological order) 4.1 Summary of map information for the three case study areas by period or ‘moment’ showing the year as of which the data were current (as indicated on the original NTS mapsheets) 4.2 Basic demographic characteristics of online questionnaire respondents (n=200). 6.1 Mode of tenure among respondents: cottage country and primary dwelling, if separate 6.2 Ten most strongly represented ethnic groups among online questionnaire respondents in rank order (n=200; categories are not mutually exclusive; ‘ø’ denotes p < 0.0005) 6.3 The five most common postal code forward sortation area (FSA) clusters within the 416 area of Muskoka Lakes Association members’ primary dwellings (n=1 280) 6.4 Respondent reactions to statements on ‘nature’ and ‘wildlife’ in cottage settings as Likert-scale scores (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree; note that the third of the three statements is inversely formulated) 6.5 Respondent reactions to statements on cottage settings as home landscapes as Likert-scale scores (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) 6.6 Respondent reactions to statements on social networks and community life in cottage settings as Likert-scale scores (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) 8.1 Characteristics of interview participants: variations in key socio-demographic variables by case study setting.